Free/Libre Scientific Publishing

Richard Stallman

2013-01-22

Many scientists now recognize the harm done by restrictive scientific
publishers that control use of the scientific literature. In 2002,
the Budapest Open Access Initiative called for applying two principles
in scientific publishing: access for everyone at the main publication
site, and freedom for everyone to redistribute them as well.

The second principle is stronger. In practice, it gives us the first:
if everyone has the freedom to redistribute copies of articles,
university libraries will mirror the articles, making them accessible
to everyone. However, the term "open access" refers explicitly to the
weaker first principle and not to the second. That makes it a weak
term.

I had misgivings about the term "open access", seeing as how the
advocates of "open source" used the word "open" to downplay the Free
Software Movement's concerns about freedom for software users. I put
them aside because the substance of the position was correct, and
signed the BOAI statement.

Meanwhile, Michael Eisen of the Public Library of Science convinced me
in 2012 that modifying and combining scientific papers is important
for science. Previously I had believed that redistribution of exact
copies was sufficient for these works, but now I believe they must be
free/libre — free as in freedom, that is, with the same four freedoms that
define free/libre software.

We must insist on "free (or libre) scientific publishing", using words
that focus on the stronger principle of users freedom, and thus resist
the tendency to weaken the goal. Please don't let your efforts be
diverted into activities that aim for merely "open".